What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

The proposal provides a much-needed strategic gangplank to strengthening the European Union’s operational efficiency in the field of asylum and migration, in that it seeks to consolidate application of the concept of ‘safe country of origin’, not least by means of a list of safe third countries of origin applicable to the whole EU, and advances the implementation of certain provisions of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, and in particular those under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU (‘Asylum Procedure Regulation’), which are now scheduled for June 2026.

Besides designating as safe countries of origin at EU level those countries granted candidate status, along with one potential candidate for accession, and establishing a list (contained in Annex II) of other countries deemed to be safe countries of origin at EU level, the proposal for a regulation brings forward the possibility of designating countries as safe with the exception of specific areas within their territory or for clearly identifiable categories of persons, thus offering Member States greater flexibility at national level, and it also advances the possibility of processing in a border procedure or an accelerated procedure applications by nationals of third countries for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection at EU level stands at 20 % or lower;

In a rapidly changing geopolitical and migratory context, the Union has embarked resolutely on a paradigm shift in its management of migration flows, and is gradually abandoning the ineffective approaches adopted in its previous models. This change in policy and regulatory direction is rooted in a better-structured and pragmatic vision more attuned to the pressing needs of security, efficiency and solidarity, and which reflects the clear will to gird the Union with joint, opportune and legally robust tools with which to address migratory challenges in a secure and lasting manner, while fully respecting the fundamental principles of the EU’s legal order. The proposal respects fundamental rights and is in line with the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, including the right to asylum and protection against refoulement under Articles 18 and 19.

The Commission’s proposal is therefore to be welcomed, and its strategic value acknowledged, as it allows for earlier implementation of the most urgent operational provisions of the Pact, thereby strengthening the capability of the Union and its Member States to take action in the short term.

This acceleration of the initial timeframe is justified by the need to ensure that the Union and its Member States are not left devoid of any effective instruments until June 2026, in circumstances where migratory pressure and the challenges arising from returns, border management and the processing of applications for international protection call for swift and effective responses. The proposal for a regulation should be viewed in this context, with its aim being to consolidate practical application of the concept of ‘safe country of origin’ as a key tool for facilitating and expediting the processing of likely-to-be unfounded applications and ensuring a more efficient and credible management of the European asylum system.

Given these circumstances, it is vital to that the proposal be considered and adopted as swiftly as possible, hence avoiding delays that would undermine its effectiveness.

As was expected, the proposal designates the candidate countries and one potential candidate for EU membership, along with six other countries, as safe countries of origin at EU level. Under the Asylum Procedure Regulation, where an applicant for international protection comes from a safe country of origin, the examination of an application is accelerated and completed within a maximum of three months. Moreover, if the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter the territory of the Member States, a Member State may examine the application in a border procedure.

We therefore agree with the Commission’s choice of including among the countries designated as safe countries of origin those which have candidate status or potential candidate status for accession to the European Union. We believe this to be the right choice and one in keeping with the current legal framework, as it was based not only on an automatic presumption, but also on a multilevel technical analysis carried out by the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA). The analysis served to thoroughly assess the judicial, institutional and fundamental rights situation in each of the countries, irrespective of the stage they had reached in the accession process.

The criteria applied were those laid down in the Qualification Regulation (EU 2024/1347) and the Asylum Procedure Regulation itself, and include verification of the absence of systemic persecution, serious harm or structural human rights violations. The designations are therefore based on objective, verifiable and harmonised EU-level parameters that comply fully with international law and the fundamental principles of the EU’s legal order.

At the same time, the proposal factors in the possibility that issues may arise in the future, and hence provides for a mechanism for the dynamic review of the list that allows for suspension or reinstatement of designation as a safe country of origin based on future developments.

It was nevertheless considered appropriate, in the interests of uniform application of the regulation across all Member States and greater legal certainty, to make certain amendments to the text, in order not only to clarify the circumstances determining suspension but also to establish a clear and coordinated mechanism for deciding when a candidate country for accession to the Union can no longer be deemed a safe country of origin, or may be reinstated as such after suspension. It is therefore felt that the Commission should conduct regular objective assessments of the relevant circumstances and formally notify the Member States of the outcome of those assessments. Such notification should be made public and should take effect uniformly across the Union from a specified date.

We also agree with the designation of the countries listed in the Annex, as this constitutes a concrete and necessary step towards building a truly common, cohesive and functional European asylum system. We would stress once again that each designation was based on a thorough technical analysis conducted by the EUAA, relying on qualified sources and objective criteria set out in EU regulations, and which was transparent and accessible, being made available to Members under the rules in force with the possibility of their accessing the sources.

The countries on the list were assessed on the basis of their capacity to ensure, structurally, the absence of persecution and serious harm, as well as on the existence of judicial and institutional protection mechanisms. However, the presumption of safety can still be superseded in individual cases, in line with the principle of individual assessment and the right to effective remedy.

It should be stressed that designation as a ‘safe country of origin’ leaves full scope for assessing individual applications and for every applicant’s right to demonstrate his or her own vulnerability or personal risk, in line with the guarantees laid down in EU legislation. In other words, the proposal does not do away with the principle of individual assessment, but integrates it into a more efficient system which reduces the risk of abuse and enables resources to be concentrated on the most complex cases and the most vulnerable individuals who, paradoxically, are currently those being penalised. The application of accelerated procedures is not tantamount, therefore, to denying the right to asylum, but is a streamlining of the system, which is currently overloaded and structurally sluggish.

It should also be emphasised that the Commission asked the EUAA to focus its analysis on a limited number of countries, selected on the basis of objective criteria, including that of a recognition rate of under 5 %. This approach made it possible to establish an operational short list, which helped to kick-start the process. That said, the list is not exhaustive and does not preclude the ‘safe country of origin’ principle from being applied to other countries.

It serves as a starting point, and may be amended and extended, not least in the light of other items of information, including the designations already appearing on the national lists drawn up by many Member States.

In conclusion, the proposal fits fully into the strategic vision of the reform of the European asylum system, which seeks to remedy the inefficiencies of the past and design a model based on clear rules, cooperation between Member States, security and the protection of fundamental rights. The early adoption of the list of safe countries of origin, together with the other areas covered by the proposal, not only constitutes a firm step towards a more credible and efficient system, but also sends a strong political signal: the Union stands ready to act and to address migratory challenges with rigour, humaneness, efficiency and foresight.

Supporting this proposal means opting for a Europe that is more in tune with values, safer and fairer.

It means equipping the EU with operational solutions that reinforce citizens’ trust and strengthen cooperation between Member States.